1. Field of the Invention
The present invention concerns a method for implementation of a medical procedure on a patient with a first medical apparatus that processes patient data and a second medical apparatus that processes patient data.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Various medical apparatuses are used today in the implementation of medical procedures on patients. Medical procedures are, for example, examinations, treatments, diagnoses or surgical or interventional operations. For example, x-ray systems, ultrasound apparatuses, computed tomography systems (CT) and magnetic resonance systems (MR) are available as medical apparatuses. The majority of these medical apparatuses operate under computer control, meaning that they are able to process patient data. Such data are, for example, information concerning patients, examination protocols or medical image material archived or acquired in the framework of the medical procedure.
Due to their capability for electronic data processing, such apparatuses are increasingly connected among one another to electronic data networks. The connection today always ensues between a single medical apparatus as a client with a server that, for example, belongs to a hospital information system (HIS) or a radiological information system (RIS).
For their implementation many medical procedures require the use of multiple medical apparatuses. The patient data used in such procedures are sent separately from the HIS/RIS to each individual medical apparatus and thus are also separately administered and stored for each apparatus.
This separation is intricate and elaborate and often hinders the workflow in a medical procedure. Given the use of a number of apparatuses, it is desirable for the user (such as doctors or nursing staff) to be able to also consider and assess examinations or treatments associated with the patient data on site, or to have all associated data in a single data set.
Integrative solutions exist in the field of the DICOM format, a worldwide image format for all imaging medical apparatuses. Multi-modality workstations thus allow the consideration of medical image information at a single workstation, even through the image information was acquired from various apparatuses at various locations, because radiological images are generated from various stationary systems, and the stationary systems are for the most part widely separated from one another.
This known approach still provides no assistance for certain problems, for example, in the case of shockwave lithotripsy in the urological field of expertise. A number of examinations in the framework of a single treatment or assessment for a singe patient are provided or indexed at various apparatuses. Whether and which apparatus or apparatuses is/are actually used is usually decided only upon the actual implementation of the procedure. Especially in lithotripsy, for example, examination is conducted both with x-rays and/or with ultrasound within a single treatment. In order to be able to access all apparatuses as needed, the patient is temporally, separately planned (scheduled) on all apparatuses via the HIS/RIS. If the doctor then uses only one of the two apparatuses, the patient is reported as untreated by the other apparatus. Corresponding corrections in the treatment protocol must be retroactively implemented manually by the HIS/RIS administrator.
The examination results for various processes designated under various treatment identifiers (study ID) are also reported by the individual apparatuses to the HIS/RIS. If the patient is simultaneously treated at both apparatuses, the examination results reported back under separate study IDs must be combined manually to form a single study ID by the HIS/RIS administrator. The accounting according to DRG billing rates is thus made more difficult. The strict separation of the apparatus administration with regard to the HIS/RIS is therefore extremely obstructive for the workflow in the course of a lithotripsy treatment.
Alternatively, the HIS/RIS can schedule the patient only on a single apparatus. Given use of another apparatus, the treating doctor must then register the patient manually. Input errors in the transfer of the patient data from the first to the second apparatus cannot be completely precluded. Moreover, as just mentioned the patient here appears to be duplicated under different study IDs. It additionally occurs that the second associated apparatus, which usually is mobile, requires an additional network connection (in particular DICOM network connection) in the room of the first apparatus. For example, a number of connections, that are then mostly unused, must be made available in a clinic. This entails installation and maintenance costs. Moreover, the second apparatus, as soon as it is added to the procedure, occupies a further logical DICOM node in the HIS/RIS that must likewise be held in reserve in the system.